Travel Photography - Superzoom or Mirrorless

What to get for travel photography?

Background: I used to carry film SLRs Sometimes, I go with one body, one lens; other times, I go with two bodies and two lens. If I got only one body, I carry a P&S as back up. About five years ago, I switch to digital P&S. Now, I need an upgraded camera. DSLR seems too heavy/big.

So, the way I see it, I can get a superzoom such as Nikon P100/P500 ($249-$400) or mirrorless system such as the Panasonic DMC-G3 ($700).

Superzoom pros:
- lighter by about 3 or 4 oz
- longer zoom
- cheaper by $300 to $400

Mirrorless pros:
- better picture quality, especially at low light conditions

What do you think?

Skip both and pick up a Fuji X100. Nikon PnS cameras are seriously the worst in class everytime. If you want a nice, high-quality PnS get a Canon S95 as a backup and the X100 as a primary camera. The X100 is well suited to travel photography as no SUPER ZOOM could ever be.

Skip both and pick up a Fuji X100. Nikon PnS cameras are seriously the worst in class everytime. If you want a nice, high-quality PnS get a Canon S95 as a backup and the X100 as a primary camera. The X100 is well suited to travel photography as no SUPER ZOOM could ever be.

Hmmmm... The X100, while intriguing, is a very expensive piece of kit. The image quality is reputed to be top-notch and the lens good (except for large apertures and close focusing when it is quite soft), but $1200 for a fixed lens rangefinder is a lot of dough. The firmware, apparently, is still quite buggy at the moment.

For that money, I'd rather go for a Nikon D7000 and a good 50 mm lens (or an equivalent model from some other manufacturer, I just happen to be a Nikon guy). The X100, of course, would be smaller and probably easier to handle, but the D7000 would be a lot more versatile.

As for the OP's question, I'd skip the Nikon PS cameras: you can do better for the same money from other vendors. Superzoom have a certain theoretical appeal as they cover a lot of focal ranges, but in my opinion, most people would be better off with a high-quality compact such as the Canon S95 keirnna mentioned (my backup camera is the older S90 which I love).

While many people love mirrorless cameras, I find them strange to hold. They are nice and slim with a pancake lens but putting on a long zoom make them feel unbalanced and shaky to me. But each and every person should judge for themselves how well a given camera fits in their hands.

If convenience and small size are your primary concerns, I'd look at a high quality compact such as the Canon S95 or Panasonic Lumix LX-5.

If, on the other hand, you want to have maximum versatility and image quality, I'd look at recent DSLRs from any of the major manufacturers.

On the mirrorless front, I'd probably suggest taking a look at Sony's NEX lineup, mainly because of the APS-C sized sensor as opposed to the four-thirds sensors in the majority of them.

Cheers,
T.

I too am considering the Panasonic DMC-G3. The main driver (relative to other mirrorless cameras) is the availability of a 100-300mm zoom, which is the equivalent of 200-600mm in 35mm speak. I'm tired of carrying my dSLR around (requires an extra carry on bag), and was considering this for the reduced relative weight. On a recent trip to India, I did carry a Panasonic travel zoom--pretty decent for travel snapshotting. I am considering the DMC-G3 for sports photography when I take trips to go windsurfing. The point and shoot cameras don't cut it because of the shutter delay.

The mirrorless m4/3 cameras are very tempting to me, but it seems like they get lukewarm reviews.

Do any of the lenses for them have the reach of a superzoom or an SLR with a Tamron 18-270?

I took a Canon S3 and then a Canon S5 superzoom on trips for years along with a P&S like the SD700 or SD1000.

Sure the image quality isn't as great as an SLR, but it was also a lot lighter with superior video quality (at the time).

I also wasn't as concerned about theft or damage for the cheaper superzooms. I would have rather had a faster SLR with better image quality, but they did just fine.

Here's a few pics from the S3 and S5.

http://margaritaislandpictures.com/Laberinto-Tropical-Isla-Margarita-Venezuela/Laberinto-Tropical-Isla-Margarita-Venezuela-119.JPG

http://margaritaislandpictures.com/Laberinto-Tropical-Isla-Margarita-Venezuela/Laberinto-Tropical-Isla-Margarita-Venezuela-130.JPG

http://paulstravelpictures.com/Tavoro-River-Waterfalls-Bouma-Park-Taveuni-Island-Fiji/Tavoro-River-Waterfalls-Bouma-Park-Taveuni-Fiji-111.JPG

Hmmmm... The X100, while intriguing, is a very expensive piece of kit. The image quality is reputed to be top-notch and the lens good (except for large apertures and close focusing when it is quite soft), but $1200 for a fixed lens rangefinder is a lot of dough. The firmware, apparently, is still quite buggy at the moment.

For that money, I'd rather go for a Nikon D7000 and a good 50 mm lens (or an equivalent model from some other manufacturer, I just happen to be a Nikon guy). The X100, of course, would be smaller and probably easier to handle, but the D7000 would be a lot more versatile.

As for the OP's question, I'd skip the Nikon PS cameras: you can do better for the same money from other vendors. Superzoom have a certain theoretical appeal as they cover a lot of focal ranges, but in my opinion, most people would be better off with a high-quality compact such as the Canon S95 keirnna mentioned (my backup camera is the older S90 which I love).

While many people love mirrorless cameras, I find them strange to hold. They are nice and slim with a pancake lens but putting on a long zoom make them feel unbalanced and shaky to me. But each and every person should judge for themselves how well a given camera fits in their hands.

If convenience and small size are your primary concerns, I'd look at a high quality compact such as the Canon S95 or Panasonic Lumix LX-5.

If, on the other hand, you want to have maximum versatility and image quality, I'd look at recent DSLRs from any of the major manufacturers.

On the mirrorless front, I'd probably suggest taking a look at Sony's NEX lineup, mainly because of the APS-C sized sensor as opposed to the four-thirds sensors in the majority of them.

Cheers,
T.

A 50mm on a crop camera is a terrible idea. The D7000 is an excellent camera, the 35/1.8G is the lens for the camera. I'd superglue it onto the camera so I could never remove it. The X100 is is cheaper by at least $200 than a D700 + 35/1.8G and will provide the same excellent image quality in a much more travel friendly package. I also haven't found it soft at any aperture.

As for a mirror-less (EVIL) camera I wouldn't want anything without an optical viewfinder outside of a PnS. Like Thalassa mentioned they are basically terrible to shoot.

A 50mm on a crop camera is a terrible idea.

Can you expand on that?

I use the 50 mm f/1.4 on my D300 all the time and find the combination excellent. Sure, it could be wider for many shots, but I get great speed and very good bokeh control. A 50 mm lens on a crop camera is also pretty well suited for portraits, IMHO.

Cheers,
T.

As for a mirror-less (EVIL) camera I wouldn't want anything without an optical viewfinder outside of a PnS. Like Thalassa mentioned they are basically terrible to shoot.

I thought the DMC-G3 has an optical viewfinder. I will definitely make sure to hold one and see if I like it before purchasing.

Can you expand on that?

I use the 50 mm f/1.4 on my D300 all the time and find the combination excellent. Sure, it could be wider for many shots, but I get great speed and very good bokeh control. A 50 mm lens on a crop camera is also pretty well suited for portraits, IMHO.

Cheers,
T.

It's just to tight of a FoV for general purpose photography. It's equivalency is closer to an 85mm so you're right, it can be nice for portraits, but certainly wouldn't be on my short list of lenses to own of a wide and a normal.

X100 is beyond my budget there.

The DMC-G3 is supposedly much better than the DMG-G2. I am tempted to get the DMC-G2 as it is currently priced at $449. However, I am thinking that a superzoom might be the better choice for now as it gets me the shot without having to buy or bring extra lenses. Also, a superzoom will be a better combination with DSLR should I decide to get one down the road.

Okay, I'll stay away from Nikon P&S then.

You're getting a lot of outdated, misleading, and fanboy opinions here. Let me add another from a dedicated micro four thirds (m43) user (I have a Panasonic DMC-GF1 and a plethora of lenses).

The X100 is a great camera, but IMHO, lack of zoom rules it out as a travel companion. 35mm equiv is great for street photography, but is going to be a real bummer for trying to pull out the details of a gargoyle 5 stories up.

The people saying "thou shalt need an optical viewfinder" are stuck in the dark ages. In this digital world, there is no technical need for it (I will admit that technology has not addressed all the concerns yet, but it is getting very close with regard to blackout, etc). I don't understand how a 95% accurate OVF is considered "Excellent" when the cheapest P&S out there has a 100% accurate display. The EVF in the Panasonic m43 cameras is quite good. Obviously, the people saying otherwise have not used one.

So, we're down to your original question, and only you can really answer ... how do you weight image quality (and control) vs portability? Technology has allowed smaller sensors to close the gap, but they will always be at a disadvantage to larger sensors, and they can never escape the laws of optics that result in a smaller sensor having a larger depth of field. In a compact or superzoom, you will NEVER be able to have a defocused background. If you like that appearance, that rules out the small sensor cameras right there. For some applications though (macro, landscape) this huge depth of field is a considerable advantage because it allows the use of wider apertures and therefore lower shutter speed and/or ISO which can virtually eliminate the sensor disadvantage (especially the most recent crop of fast lens equipped models like the f/1.8 Olympus XZ1).

Let's assume then that having a camera that fits in your shirt pocket is not a priority, that you would like some control over depth of field, and you want some zoom range. Mirrorless starts to make a lot of sense here as it strikes a much better balance between size and image quality - especially the micro four thirds models, as the larger image circle of the APS-C sensor requires larger lenses. The collapsible lenses from Olympus, particularly the 9-18 (18-36 in 35 mm equiv) is absolutely tiny when stored. The high ISO noise is much better than a compact (ISO 800-1600), but not as good as the most recent crop of Sony sensored APS-C models (ISO 3200+).

M43 has, by far, the most extensive lens lineup in mirrorless, and just about ANY lens from any other system can be mounted via adapter (this is true of all the mirrorless cameras due to the shorter flange-back distance). None of the mirrorless formats have a good selection of bright/fast lenses currently. My kit covers 16mm - 400mm in 35 mm equivalent terms with:
Panasonic Lumix G 8mm f/3.5 fisheye
Leica D VarioElmarit 14-50 f/2.8-35 (via m43 - 43 adapter)
Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 pancake
Leica DG Macro elmarit 45mm f/2.8
Lumix G vario 45-200mm f/4-5.6
All of this fits in the bottom half of a Tenba mini messenger

In the end though, image quality in pretty much all cameras has become so good as to not matter a whole lot unless you are printing very large or shoot in extreme environments (fast action in low light). I have printed cropped images at 13x19 and a HEAVILY cropped image at 8x10 and people are blown away.

My recommendation is to go to a store and try them out as the biggest difference is the user interface. For example, the Sony NEX cameras have fantastic image quality, and I could have gotten one much cheaper than the GF1, but I couldn't figure out how to use it in 10 mins at the counter, where I could the Panasonic (same to be said for the Olympus too) - it just "fit" me better.

Tons of travel pictures here:
http://troyandmollyalloverthemap.shutterfly.com/

Korea and later are with the DMC GF1
"Canada Aug 2010" was with a Panasonic TS2
All the others are with a Canon Powershot A610

So, we're down to your original question, and only you can really answer ... how do you weight image quality (and control) vs portability? Technology has allowed smaller sensors to close the gap, but they will always be at a disadvantage to larger sensors, and they can never escape the laws of optics that result in a smaller sensor having a larger depth of field. In a compact or superzoom, you will NEVER be able to have a defocused background.

This statement is simply utter poppycock. It is certainly easier to create a defocused background with a larger sensor DSLR and a wide aperture, but it is perfectly doable with a compact camera. As for evidence, the following image was taken with a Canon S90 which is very much a compact.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/5451375238_76648c2aaf_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/5451375238/)
Last call at JFK (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/5451375238/) by monojussi (http://www.flickr.com/people/monojussi/), on Flickr


My recommendation is to go to a store and try them out as the biggest difference is the user interface. For example, the Sony NEX cameras have fantastic image quality, and I could have gotten one much cheaper than the GF1, but I couldn't figure out how to use it in 10 mins at the counter, where I could the Panasonic (same to be said for the Olympus too) - it just "fit" me better.


This part, however, I do agree with. Trying out the different cameras and seeing how they fit your hand and how the user interface fits your thinking is more important than really any of the advise dished out here.

Cheers,
T.

This statement is simply utter poppycock. It is certainly easier to create a defocused background with a larger sensor DSLR and a wide aperture, but it is perfectly doable with a compact camera. As for evidence, the following image was taken with a Canon S90 which is very much a compact.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/5451375238_76648c2aaf_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/5451375238/)
Last call at JFK (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/5451375238/) by monojussi (http://www.flickr.com/people/monojussi/), on Flickr

Yes, with a near macro focal point and a massive distance to background, wide open, you can get a defocused background. In ANY normal (say, portrait) situation you will not be able to do that.

This is actually a strong point for the compact - with any larger sensor camera, not nearly that much of the glass would be in focus, or you would have had to stop down considerably, and pushed the exposure way into non-handholdable shutter speeds.

Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 pancake

Have it. Love it. The low supply makes pricing difficult though. New ones sell for $100 above MSRP, but you will occasionally find people (who got one packaged with the GF1) selling them around $300-325.

The Samsung NX system is interesting as well.

There are always tradeoffs to be considered with all of these formats. I like a D90/D7K sized DSLR with a lens like the Tamron 18-270. I prefer the flexibility, RAW file capture, etc. With the right kind of strap it's not that heavy.

NX lens lineup isn't quite there yet, and Samsung has a history or over promising and under delivering. That said, I agree the NX is worth a look. If they deliver on their lens roadmap, they will have a huge lead over Sony. Sony definitely has the sensor edge right now - their most recent crop of sensors (as used by Sony, Nikon, and Pentax) is downright amazing.

m43 has 28-280 (equiv) and 28-300 (equiv) superzooms currently. The overall size will be a bit smaller and much lighter than your D90, and image quality will be the same or better. Video will blow just about any DSLR out of the water, if that's important to you. All of the m43 lenses are actually very good - being designed by either Zuiko or Leica (if not in reality, in practicality, as Panasonic has definitely got the better end of the deal with the partnership with Leica IMHO)