Originally Posted by
LemonThrower
thanks for the interesting suggestion
looks like these non-SLR cameras are generally more expensive, generally better for video, and generally inferior for photography (e.g. maximum aperture is about a stop less, etc.).
I don't really wan't to pay double, and my existing 1080p video is more than ample for my needs. aside from the weight/bulk, i'm not seeing much of an advantage. Am i missing something?
Truth is, particularly where travel is concerned you'll actually do better with a mirrorless camera.
In particular the Micro Four Thirds, basically because you can really get compact and lightweight with these.
In addition to the cameras I mentioned above, if you want to be adventurous and really go for ultra compact, look at the
Panasonic GM5, which has exact same image and video quality, but is cleverly designed to be compact while actually offering a lot of controls. You have to really examine closely this device to understand it. Once you do, it's kind of a sleeper.
With anyone of these Micro Four Thirds cameras, you can pick from a huge set of lenses. My picks for travel would be the Panasonic Leica 25mm 1.4 for night and the Panasonic 14-140 f4-5.6 (the latest version). The kit lens that comes with the GM5 (12-32) is also worth owning. it's a classic.
But personally I would not buy a traditional DSLR at this point in time. These companies are dragging their feet and in some ways kind of milking it. The money is too good for them to let go, but really they could be doing a lot more. They are stuck in the classic business trap that the likes of Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia fell into in mobile phones.