Travel Camera?

[NW-Bound]

My wife dunked her camera too. I trust that you still have the ruined camera to retrieve the flash memory for the pictures, meaning you did not really drop and lose it to the deep? Else, you would need a camera that floats.

 

[GoodSense]

Yes, I was able to retrieve the memory card with my pictures intact (Thank Goodness!!). It had about 1,200 photos from my recent cruise to the Southern Caribbean. I would have had a heart attack if I lost all my photos!

 

[Koolau]

Yes, I was able to retrieve the memory card with my pictures intact (Thank Goodness!!). It had about 1,200 photos from my recent cruise to the Southern Caribbean. I would have had a heart attack if I lost all my photos!

Reminds me of a story from my youth. HS German Club planned a trip to Europe - pretty much on the cheap. Got some language teachers to chaperone the group. Great time had by all in like 7 countries.

This was 1964 and the "Instamatic" camera was a recent invention. None of us on the trip were particularly camera savvy so most carried these point-and-shoot-with-the-drop-in-film-cassette cameras. I happened to carry a really cheap 35mm SLR I'd bought from Sears and Sawbuck for maybe $13. One of the girls in the group pointed out that once the Instamatic film cartridge was used up, one could break the cartridge in half, dispose of the empty film side and keep the exposed side. This would save precious space as we accumulated treasures from various countries. Sounded good to several who followed her advice. Unfortunately, she apparently was unaware of which was the film supply and which was the exposed film spool. Low and behold upon presenting said broken cartridges for processing back in the good old U S of A, several folks found that they had pitched the wrong half. As I had used the more ancient technology, my pictures were in great demand - and of course the girl who didn't know which side was which was somewhat of a pariah at our little club get-together a couple of weeks later. Guess you live and learn - sometimes the hard way.

 

[JustMeUC]

Do not be sucked in by the more megapixals the better. The small sensor in compact camera just can NOT handle it. It may be hard to find a new camera now with lower megapixals but you want to try. Anything over 10 and you start to lose quality.

You may want to consider one of the mid-size compact super zooms. I just got the Sony HX5 and it is incredible for what it is. It doen't take the quality of my D-SLR, but it also weighs 1/4 as much and is 1/4 the size. It has a lot of bells and whistles, GPS, etc but really the most important thing is what really great quality photos it takes.

 

[ERD50]

Do not be sucked in by the more megapixals the better. ...

Good point that everyone, including myself, failed to mention.

Megapixels are no better measure of 'quality' than the size of a gas tank in a car is a measure of its performance or quality. In fact, higher megapixel counts *can* be an indication of inferior quality.

Since manufacturers recognize that people focus on that single number, they often sacrifice quality in other areas to maximize megapixels at a given price point. It can mean a cheaper lens, poor quality sensor that results in more noise (similar to 'grain' on film), or poorer light sensitivity. Look for reviews on the picture quality under the shooting conditions you are likely to use it under, and ignore the pixel count.

-ERD50

 

[GoodSense]

Reminds me of a story from my youth. HS German Club planned a trip to Europe - pretty much on the cheap. Got some language teachers to chaperone the group. Great time had by all in like 7 countries.

This was 1964 and the "Instamatic" camera was a recent invention. None of us on the trip were particularly camera savvy so most carried these point-and-shoot-with-the-drop-in-film-cassette cameras. I happened to carry a really cheap 35mm SLR I'd bought from Sears and Sawbuck for maybe $13. One of the girls in the group pointed out that once the Instamatic film cartridge was used up, one could break the cartridge in half, dispose of the empty film side and keep the exposed side. This would save precious space as we accumulated treasures from various countries. Sounded good to several who followed her advice. Unfortunately, she apparently was unaware of which was the film supply and which was the exposed film spool. Low and behold upon presenting said broken cartridges for processing back in the good old U S of A, several folks found that they had pitched the wrong half. As I had used the more ancient technology, my pictures were in great demand - and of course the girl who didn't know which side was which was somewhat of a pariah at our little club get-together a couple of weeks later. Guess you live and learn - sometimes the hard way.

When I used a film camera, there were plenty of times when I thought the scroll was loaded and it really wasn't. Of course you can't open it mid-scroll. Many precious Kodak moments lost on my part, too.

 

[HsiaoChu]

I prefer a small digital camera myself for travel. Most take very decent pictures.

My last SLR was a 35-mm Canon A1, and I never bought a digital SLR. I think I will need to update to a newer compact digital one that can take moving pictures, so that I do not need to bring the digital camcorder - the smallest and lightest miniDV that Canon made (I can hide it in my palm, and I do not have big hands), which cost me a bundle but is so obsolete now.

I still have my A-1 sitting on my bureau with a 100-300 and a 35-105 zooms. Great Camera. But I made the swtich in 2001 to digital with a Sony CD-300, and then later a Sony CD-500. I sold my wedding camera, a Mamiya 645, cause i knew that I'd not be able to find a buyer for it soon. Actually couldn't and sold it to someone in Canada. I have a Canon 20D now, and though its only 8 Mp with its 1.6 frame sensor, it beats the pants off of most of what I did with the A-1. There is just no comparison. And with the ImAGE STABILIZATION LENSES, its great. People often think that because the grain of film is as small as .5 - 3 micro meters in diameter, that film is better than digital. The reality is that to get any photo tesponse the grains have to clump to about 75 micr0meters. This makes an 8mp 1.6 digital camera way more sensitive than film.

I'd really like a 12 mp full frame 5D, but I'll have to wait till I sell my house.

 

[Emeritus]

For a primary trip "tourist" camera I always take one that uses AA batteries not a proprietary format. You never want ot be caught short by battery problems. I take both rechargeables and a recharger and the long life lithium. I have both a Canon and a Nikon that do nicely. My big Olympus also uses AA and is my favorite for nature photography Underwater we use Panasonic lumix despite the special battery.

 

[landover]

Compact super zoom

I like these cameras, these are not very compact but not big either. Generally I look for a camera with at least 28 mm wide focus length, still lower the better. Telephoto upto 250-300mm is good for most situation. And cameras in this range are generally are better models from manufactures. Here is a comparison review, these cameras are around 10x, next range is 18-20x, but those cameras are bit more heavy.

Also look for optical image stabilization, really helps in most situation.

 

[bruce1]

Currently using an older Sony cybershot for a pocket camera and a Pentax SLR. May upgrade the Sony soon. I have not used my film stuff for eight years. I have three medium formats a mamiya 645, a mamiya C3TLR, a Pentacon six all with 80 and 180 mm lens and two complete Minolta X700 kits with a bunch of lens, flashes ect. i should sell the bunch. I think I can get a digital back for the 645 for several thousand.