The best travel camera
I often get asked “What’s the ideal travel camera?”
It’s pretty easy. It’s got a 12 megapixel sensor, a top-quality lens, a great exposure meter, instant start-up, no shutter-lag, excellent battery life and built-in image stabilisation, weighs under 500g and supports RAW files.
The only problem is, nobody makes it just yet.
Like it or not, choosing a camera, particularly for travel, is always going to involve compromise.
If you’re choosing your first ‘serious’ camera, the first thing to get past is the idea that your chances of taking good shots depend on the camera you get your paws on. I can’t stress enough how badly you can go astray following this line of thinking (and I’m speaking from experience).
Right now, somewhere on the internet, there is a full-blown war going on over whether the Canon Dingdong X1 takes better pictures than the Nikon Doodah Y2. The best interjection I’ve seen in the middle of one of those (yep, I was reading) came from a photographer who asked: “Who do you reckon had the better brushes — da Vinci or Michelangelo?”
Once you’ve reconciled yourself to the fact that Cartier-Bresson would have taken better shots with a Holga than you probably will with six-grand’s worth of electronic and optical wizardry, you’ll be able to ask yourself about the things that really matter to you. And these will differ from one person to the next.
In the final analysis, you will get higher-quality shots from a DSLR. With the vast majority of travel pictures, however, the difference most likely won’t matter. Some non-DSLR cameras now also support RAW files (RAW also involves a trade-off; a bit more latitude in exposure and total control over white balance versus the need to convert files to jpg and the extra storage space needed).
Also, if you are the kind of person who likes to capture spontaneous, fleeting moments, the DSLR gives you an advantage. Virtually instant start-up and little or no shutter-lag mean you miss less of these kind of shots.
You will pay for this, however, both financially and in terms of convenience. You’re not going to slip a DSLR into your shirt pocket, and at times it may feel like a downright nuisance.
Add to this that there are a lot of non-DSLR cameras now that have a huge zoom range. To get the equivalent range with a DLSR, you’re probably going to end up carrying two lenses, for example an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. There’s also the temptation to keep switching lenses, increasing the likelihood of ending up with dust on the sensor and, well, you see what I’m getting at.
With a smaller camera, there’s more likelihood you’ll always have it with you — and let’s face it, if the opportunity presents itself, you’re more likely to get a good shot with a small, cheap camera than with no camera at all.
* For the record, my kit is a Nikon D40x DSLR (chosen largely for its light weight) and a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens (for its range and quality). A bit heavier overall than I would have liked, but I didn’t want to lose any of the image quality I’d got used to in four years with a D70. The D40x is far from a ‘professional’ camera, but it’s at least the equal of the D70, which has seen me get plenty of photos bought or published.
March 19, 2009 9:18 pm 
