Need a camera for travelling to South America

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The most important thing is for the OP to try out some cameras beforehand and get something they find easy to use. It is no point getting the best reviewed camera for your budget if you find terrible to use.

I agree that dSLRs are better for low light shooting and fast moving objects but I disagree about the telephoto ends of the superzoom cameras being of limited use. In decent light they are more than capable of focussing fast enough. The LX3 has a pitiful tele end range and if it even had an 85~100mm equivalent it would be much more useful IMHO.

Regarding the Eagle picture even a low end dSLR like a A200 or D40 will not have fast enough AF unless you have an SSM or AFS lens . With budget or older lenses in low light there can still be issues with hunting too especially with faster moving objects.

I have used plenty of these "so-called" inferior compacts and have got many fantastic pictures out of them.Many of them did not have any stabilisation either.

To overcome the lack of stabilisation in low light I either used a monopod or rested the camera on a solid surface if I could not be bothered to carry the former.

However their small size meant that I had the cameras to hand in situations where I would not be carrying a film SLR or a dSLR.

I also disagree with this almost snobbish derision of compact cameras. Better cameras make the job easier(and sometimes open up new opportunities) but still even such "lowly" cameras like the Canon A620 and A80 are capable of producing great pictures if used properly:

http://photo.net/photodb/presentatio...tion_id=317651

http://photo.net/photodb/presentatio...tion_id=273356


Also you bring more attention to yourself waiving around an SLR which is not a great idea in many cases. People either think your are loaded or some professional especially outside of more affluent areas in my personal experience. You are less likely to be bothered when carrying a compact especially if you want to take some candid pictures.


The less the OP can carry the better. Either you they will be stung with high humidity at sea level or very thin air in the mountains which can really wear you down especially if you are trekking.

I have known people who have gone to Machu Picchu and even travelling light it can be a very tiring journey if you are trekking there.

Of course if the OP is some super fit athlete then perhaps this would not count as much.

Is the OP looking at this as a photography trip or trip with some pictures taken on the way?? If it is the former I can agree why people would be bothered to lug around a dSLR. If it is the latter and you are travelling with some mates there would situations where a dSLR would be overkill(for example on a night out in one of the cities for example).

If you are travelling it makes more sense for the average photographer to have one superzoom covering a larger range too. However a superzoom and an A200 or D40 will far exceed the budget of the OP and also the 28mm end of these zooms is not enough IMHO. Something closer to 24mm(in 35mm terms) at least is preferable. Zooms like the Sony 16-105mm and Nikon 16-85mm are well over £300!

Especially with the amount of dust and humidity in many of the countries the OP is travelling they really need to be carefully about changing lenses too if they are a novice and also must know how to clean the sensor if they do get anything on it.

[BUFF]

Regarding the Eagle picture even a low end dSLR like a A200 or D40 will not have fast enough AF unless you have an SSM or AFS lens . .

SSM etc. isn't necessarily faster than screw drive - quieter yes, faster no
& any lens to get decent photos of eagles etc. in the wild isn't going to be small, light or cheap ..

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

SSM etc. isn't necessarily faster than screw drive - quieter yes, faster no
& any lens to get decent photos of eagles etc. in the wild isn't going to be small, light or cheap ..

I would say in my experience a lens like the 70-300 G SSM is much quicker on my A200 then say the Sony/Minolta 75-300mm, Minolta 100-200mm/f4.5,Minolta 70-210mm/f4,Minolta APO 100-300mm,Sigma 135-400mm APO,Sigma 28-300mm and Sony 55-200mm lens.

Perhaps I need to try some higher end screw-drive lenses though. I suspect a camera like the A700 would have better AF with screw-drive in low light then the A200 though so YMMV.

The cost of decent telephotos has gone up a lot recently for Sony!! The 70-300mm G has shot up by around £200(from around £400 to £500 to over £650) in the last 6 months as has many other Sony lenses. Seems to be affecting Olympus and other companies too though!

[brammers]

In decent light they are more than capable of focussing fast enough.

I think people might be shocked to find out how rarely 'decent light' comes about. For anything that's moving we really are talking about sunny 16 conditions here :E Compacts don't focus very quickly and they're slow at the long end with an inability to use high ISOs - it's just the result of them being small.

The LX3 has a pitiful tele end range and if it even had an 85~100mm equivalent it would be much more useful IMHO.

70mm is hardly pitiful - it's a standard zoom. It pushes past the normal perspective barrier and is definately one of my favourite tele focal lengths. It also manages it at a nice and fast f2.8 as well as going to 24 rather than 28mm. It's not a superzoom, but don't knock it as being pitiful.

Regarding the Eagle picture even a low end dSLR like a A200 or D40 will not have fast enough AF unless you have an SSM or AFS lens .

This is quite simply wrong.

To overcome the lack of stabilisation in low light I either used a monopod or rested the camera on a solid surface if I could not be bothered to carry the former.

Yup - this is the limitation that I've been banging on about. With compacts low light = slow shutter speeds - there's no way round it other than on-camera flash.

However their small size meant that I had the cameras to hand in situations where I would not be carrying a film SLR or a dSLR.

This is way too big an assumption to apply to other people. Some people are happy carrying a small DSLR, some people are happy carrying a Mamiya 645, some people find the very issue of taking photos too much bother. This isn't something for you do draw lines on for everybody.

I also disagree with this almost snobbish derision of compact cameras. Better cameras make the job easier(and sometimes open up new opportunities) but still even such "lowly" cameras like the Canon A620 and A80 are capable of producing great pictures if used properly:

http://photo.net/photodb/presentatio...tion_id=317651

http://photo.net/photodb/presentatio...tion_id=273356

You've proven my point very nicely here. 2 wonderful galleries of compact camera shots - every single one of which was taken in unchallenging conditions. Not one of those shots pushes the kind of boundaries that an LX3 or a DSLR could. They also highlight the importance of the tabletop tripod/beanbag support - there's a lot of shots in there taken at shutter speeds that you can't hand-hold (on a compact).

Also you bring more attention to yourself waiving around an SLR which is not a great idea in many cases. People either think your are loaded or some professional especially outside of more affluent areas in my personal experience. You are less likely to be bothered when carrying a compact especially if you want to take some candid pictures.

I've always found a smile and a nod of the head more condusive to taking people photos than shooting a small camera. Let's face it, europeans stand out in South America - you don't overcome that by being inconspicuous, you overcome it by being friendly.

The less the OP can carry the better. Either you they will be stung with high humidity at sea level or very thin air in the mountains which can really wear you down especially if you are trekking.

I have known people who have gone to Machu Picchu and even travelling light it can be a very tiring journey if you are trekking there.

Of course if the OP is some super fit athlete then perhaps this would not count as much.

I did the Inca Trail a few years ago and it wasn't that tough. As long as you're acclimatised to the altitude (saw a lot of people being given oxygen because they hadn't given themselves long enough to adjust) then I can't see say an a200 + 18-70 + 100-300 being a burden. A compact is undoubtedly lighter. I took a rugby ball + pump up there for a quick game of mountain-top touch

Especially with the amount of dust and humidity in many of the countries the OP is travelling they really need to be carefully about changing lenses too if they are a novice and also must know how to clean the sensor if they do get anything on it.

Dust is overrated - you need to pack a rocket blower and a couple of cloths in a sandwich bag. 20g worth of kit tops.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think people might be shocked to find out how rarely 'decent light' comes about. For anything that's moving we really are talking about sunny 16 conditions here :E Compacts don't focus very quickly and they're slow at the long end with an inability to use high ISOs - it's just the result of them being small.

I have used older generation compact cameras without stabilisation when visiting Asia and I have only had issues in quite poor light. I have tried some of the newer generation cameras and they have much better autofocus and lens stabilisation.

70mm is hardly pitiful - it's a standard zoom. It pushes past the normal perspective barrier and is definately one of my favourite tele focal lengths. It also manages it at a nice and fast f2.8 as well as going to 24 rather than 28mm. It's not a superzoom, but don't knock it as being pitiful.

TBH I find 70mm a so-so focal length and I rather prefer 80mm to 90mm at least. The LX3 is a 24mm to 60mm equivalent zoom. They might as well have made it a constant f2.0 aperture 24-50mm.

Again, I found the 190mm end of my Optio 450 quite useful in certain circumstances when travelling. The 100mm end on my S60 was a pain in certain situations. The newer cameras are much quicker in operation and have MUCH better autofocus.

This is quite simply wrong.

Actually YOU are wrong here!! I actually have an A200(and used a D40) and when the light levels drop they have issues with autofocusing with telezooms in lower light conditions. In the case of the A200 especially with screw lenses.

I would say in my experience a lens like the 70-300 G SSM(built in motor) is quicker on my A200 then say the Sony/Minolta 75-300mm, Minolta 100-200mm/f4.5,Minolta 70-210mm/f4,Minolta APO 100-300mm,Sigma 135-400mm APO,Sigma 28-300mm and Sony 55-200mm lens which I have used or owned. However it can still miss focus at times. Tried another A200 and it shows the same behavior in low light. These lenses are among the commonest budget tele-lenses used on the A200.

In good light the focus is fast enough though.

However having used the A700 with the 70-300mm G SSM works much better in lower light conditions than on the A200.

With shorter focal lengths under 150mm and f4.5(and under) however the autofocus is much more positive.

The A100 was known for its slow autofocus. The A200 is a big improvement but in challenging conditions it is still not good enough.

Of course the 70-300mm G SSM costs over £500.

Yup - this is the limitation that I've been banging on about. With compacts low light = slow shutter speeds - there's no way round it other than on-camera flash.

Except I managed to still get decent shots and this was with an Optio 450 with no stabilisation and very high noise over ISO200. Newer compacts have much better high ISO and stabilisation.

This is way too big an assumption to apply to other people. Some people are happy carrying a small DSLR, some people are happy carrying a Mamiya 645, some people find the very issue of taking photos too much bother. This isn't something for you do draw lines on for everybody.

I just said that from my experience it was more convenient at times to carry a compact. Not everyone is a camera geek having a dSLR in their bag everywhere they go! I would have missed shots if I just stuck with an SLR only.

Anyway I never said it was for everyone did I?? You have put that line in YOUR head.

You've proven my point very nicely here. 2 wonderful galleries of compact camera shots - every single one of which was taken in unchallenging conditions. Not one of those shots pushes the kind of boundaries that an LX3 or a DSLR could. They also highlight the importance of the tabletop tripod/beanbag support - there's a lot of shots in there taken at shutter speeds that you can't hand-hold (on a compact).

It has actually disproved your point entirely. I have showed an example that a dSLR or a higher end compact is NOT necessary to produce great shots. This has been my point all along. You have just been banging along how high end compacts and dSLRs can ONLY do the job.

The A620 and A80 were very cheap compacts with relatively slow lenses. The A80 had no stabilisation at all IIRC.

I've always found a smile and a nod of the head more condusive to taking people photos than shooting a small camera. Let's face it, europeans stand out in South America - you don't overcome that by being inconspicuous, you overcome it by being friendly.

You only make yourself more conspicuous waiving around a dSLR camera. It really depends where you go though.

I did the Inca Trail a few years ago and it wasn't that tough. As long as you're acclimatised to the altitude (saw a lot of people being given oxygen because they hadn't given themselves long enough to adjust) then I can't see say an a200 + 18-70 + 100-300 being a burden. A compact is undoubtedly lighter. I took a rugby ball + pump up there for a quick game of mountain-top touch

There are also the people who do find it tiring and want to actually look at the scenary rather then mucking around changing lenses.

Also the 18-70mm simply does not have enough coverage and a 16mm(or nearest to a 24mm end in 35mm) is much better for landscapes. Also the OP is travelling to many countries so the 25-300mm range is far more useful than the 24-60mm equivalent zoom the LX3 has.

Dust is overrated - you need to pack a rocket blower and a couple of cloths in a sandwich bag. 20g worth of kit tops.

For the average novice this is much more hastle than they want.

With a compact you do not even need to bother with this. Keep it in the case,take the picture and replace back in case. Better still put it round you neck.

[brammers]

Cat, you're not reading correctly - I'm too old...

timtim, I've presented 3 options - budget compact, premium compact or entry-level DSLR. Don't see that further debate is going to do anything, make your choice and enjoy South America - I wish I was back there instead of crappy Beijing!!!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Cat, you're not reading correctly - I'm too old...

timtim, I've presented 3 options - budget compact, premium compact or entry-level DSLR. Don't see that further debate is going to do anything, make your choice and enjoy South America - I wish I was back there instead of crappy Beijing!!!

I think I need to de-stress(work issues). I apologise. At least you are in China!!

Anyway as I said earlier the OP should go down to Jessops or their nearest friendly photo retailer and try some cameras. This way the OP will pretty much know what they want.

[BUFF]

I would say in my experience a lens like the 70-300 G SSM is much quicker on my A200 then say the Sony/Minolta 75-300mm, Minolta 100-200mm/f4.5,Minolta 70-210mm/f4,Minolta APO 100-300mm,Sigma 135-400mm APO,Sigma 28-300mm and Sony 55-200mm lens.

Perhaps I need to try some higher end screw-drive lenses though. I suspect a camera like the A700 would have better AF with screw-drive in low light then the A200 though so YMMV.

try something like an 80-200 F2.8 HS APO G & ideally on something like a Dynax 9 or 7.

The cost of decent telephotos has gone up a lot recently for Sony!! The 70-300mm G has shot up by around £200(from around £400 to £500 to over £650) in the last 6 months as has many other Sony lenses. Seems to be affecting Olympus and other companies too though!

Not just lenses & as you say not just Sony, e.g. Sigma went up 40% - it's the exchange rate.

[timtim86]

Sorry guys, I didn't realise there had been so many posts to this thread! Let me get through it all and I'll get back to you. Thanks for the input...