Efrem

Leaving soon for two weeks in Israel. Options are (a) Nikon D5100 with 18-55 and 55-300mm lenses, (b) Panasonic FZ35 compact 18:1 superzoom.

Pro the Nikon: better image quality, more flexible in lots of shooting situations, faster focusing ... did I mention better image quality?

Pro the Panny: much smaller/lighter, marginally more reach at the telephoto end*, no lenses to swap.

I expect to shoot mostly tourism sites, scenery and people (friends/family). Most photos will be well lit. Nothing unusual like macro, special effects. Little video if any. I don't expect to print large enlargements of any photos, though it might be nice to be able to if I change my mind. I might crop, though, so the extra IQ of the Nikon could come in handy that way.

I'm leaning toward taking the Nikon - what else did I get it for? - but every time I look at them side by side I have misgivings. The Panny case hooks onto my belt, the Nikon means a shoulder bag or a backpack.

Thoughts?

_____________________
*Not significant. I can crop a Nikon image to show the same amount. Even after cropping, it will have more and better pixels than a Panasonic image would.

oblisk

I'd take the Nikon. Shoot in Raw.

It isn't that much weight and if you have larger pockets no need to carry a bag, drop one lens in the pockets and hold the camera in your hand the rest of the time.

YMMV as I'm someone who lugs around a heavy SLR practically everywhere I go, so much so that I barely notice the weight.

satman40

Raw is great if you love Light Room, and Photo Shop and edit every picture,

JPEG, is fine, and you would be surprised what Lightroom can do with any photo.

Good Light Good pictures,

bertsirkin

Ditto on the DSLR.

I just returned from 3-weeks in Israel. I brought a D800 and D600 along with three relatively small lenses (20mm/2.8, 105mm/2.8 and 28-85/3.5-4.5. I shot almost exclusively with the 20mm and 105mm.

Also ditto on the RAW. I shoot RAW and JPEG - I use the JPEG for proofing only, but if you like the JPEG image, you don't need to edit it. BUT... if the image needs editing (IMHO, most DSLR images NEED editing), you always have the RAW to fall back on.

bert

ozdude

Do you really need the 55-300 for a holiday? I normally travel with 24 and 50 primes. I think it's worth weighing up if you really need the extra zoom, if not, then take the DSLR.

LtKernelPanic

I guess it boils down to is this a "once in a life time trip" or not. If it is take the DSLR. My D90 is always with me when on vacation. I also have a Sony WX-90 P&S that takes pretty decent pics that easily fits in my D90's bag for when I don't want/need a DSLR.

I also agree 100% with bertsirkin on the RAW+JPG. I've found that the jpegs are often good enough to post online but any time I do any post processing in Aperture (or LR) I want the NEF. Now that huge hard drive and SD cards are so sheap there's really no reason IMO not to shoot RAW+JPG with the jpeg set to the highest quality the camera allows. To me the RAW NEF files are like the negatives from the film days. You may never need them but when you do you'll be glad you have them.

Which ever camera you take make sure you safe guard your images. If possible make at least one backup while there and if at all possible avoid erasing the memory cards until you're safely home. Cameras can be easily replaced but the images may not so easily be.

sugarbird

I use my Nikon D80 with 18-200 lens for virtually all my trips.
Israel is a great visit---I would not take the Panasonic.

pnsnkr

The FZ35 does indeed shoot in RAW and is supported by LR.

I've had very good results with my FZ35 that on a few of my recent travels, I left my Canon 5D at home since the FZ35 was more than adequate. BTW, it also has an excellent macro (1cm close focus) capability.

That said, Israel is so photogenic that I'd have to come up with a valid reason to leave my Canon 5D behind; such as, a quick business trip with a day for sight-seeing and the need to travel lite.

Also concur with the other poster. Leave the telephoto zoom at home. Take a tripod.

Middle_Seat

I've quit carrying a large camera, and now take either a Panasonic FS10 or an older, even smaller FH-22. The little cameras fit in a pants or shirt pocket, so they are not a burden like the larger camera(s) I used to carry.

If you plan to take photos for publication, then shooting RAW with a DSLR on a tripod is mandatory. If you just want to have a fun vacation, with some enjoyable snapshots to remember it by, you may find that a little P&S is all you need.

deniah

once i learned lightroom - and it only took a few youtube videos to get the hang of it - i really dont see RAW as any of a burden at all.

it can convert to jpg in batch. it can convert to jpg with preset corrections in batch. you typically dont publish every single photo you snap, so the selection process is still there, and the "developing" process doesnt take much longer.

besides the size hit - which the cheapness of storage makes an obsolescence - i dont ever see myself returning to direct JPG anymore

ozdude

Why a tripod? Unless you are referring to low light situations or daylight ND shots. With cameras these days you can easily shoot to 1/15 shutter speed without camera shake.

Middle_Seat

I just noticed an article in the current (June 2013) issue of Outdoor Photographer magazine, in which the author has to decide whether to take his usual DSLR outfit or just a small P&S as he prepares for a scenic hike in the mountains.

The article starts on page 68 of the magazine.

ND Sol

Not if you are shooting with a long telephoto. Even so, I have noticed improved sharpness when shooting with a tripod. That also permits a longer shutter speed, which means I can use a lower ISO and/or smaller aperture for greater sharpness.

bertsirkin

It all depends on how you define "quality". Shooting at 1/15 second with almost ANY focal length without some sort of physical stabilization (tripod, bean bag, etc) is a recipe for LOW quality. It may be OK if you're emailing 300x400 pixel images, but for most any other work, it will yield pretty low quality images.

A trip to Israel (or any other similar location) may justify taking a bit more gear than just point-and-shoot - ASSUMING, that your pictures are important to you. There's obviously an argument for SEEING and not PHOTOGRAPHING - in which case, a point-and-shoot may be fine.

But, if you want to remember your trip with high-quality images (for most of us, the only reason you're even taking travel images is for the memories after the trip), it unfortunately takes more than simple equipment. Some of the best images you can take while traveling are at dawn, dusk or at night. These types of images require some sort of PHYSICAL stabilization.

(FWIW, I almost always turn stabilization OFF on my stabilized lenses, as image stabilization, by it's nature, creates "softer" (less sharp) images)

Again, it's up to you what kind of quality images you want to return with.

flyboy60

Twas this very dilemma that caused me to make my newest investment in the Micro 4/3 platform.