Need a camera for travelling to South America

[timtim86]

Hi everyone,

In the summer I'm going to South America for two months. The trip will include Brazil (with it's beaches), Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia and Peru (for a trip up the Inca Trail). And I need to buy a good camera to take with me.

Does anyone have anything they'd recommend? I was looking at the Olympus Tough 8000, as it's really quite bomb proof. Do you think that's a good choice? I have been worried about the compromise on picture quality and zoom, will it matter to a (very) amateur photographer?

My dad is convinced that I should take a DSLR or at least a pocket camera with a big zoom, but obviously these aren't as tough as the Olympus. And an SLR would probably get nicked and look silly.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

[kalniel]

I think I'd probably go straight for a Panasonic Lumix LX3. Smallish, very solid camera that takes great pics:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/

It could be me, but I find when I'm in interesting places I usually take more photos at the wide end than the tele, and this camera excels there. The low light performance is better than any other compact as well. The only step up would be a DSLR, but as you say they're a bit more conspicuous.

[timtim86]

Hmm, think that one may be a little too expensive for me.

Any other suggestions?

[timtim86]

How about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ7? Does anyone have any experience with that? The reviews look good..

[kalniel]

Hmm, think that one may be a little too expensive for me.

Any other suggestions?

Need to know your budget then.

[IBM]

....and look silly.

I loll'd...

[timtim86]

I loll'd...

Ha! Only cos I don't know how to use one!

Kalniel, budget would be about up to £280 I guess.

[kalniel]

That's not far off a LX3 - you might be able to haggle a discount or look for an offer/cashback to bring it within budget - or go second hand.

If you have to go under that, then yes the TZ7 is worth a look, as is the Canon SX200 IS. Thing is they're not really such the step up from regular compact cameras that I'd feel they're worth spending budget-DSLR kind of money on (Nikon D40, Sony A200 etc. all around the £200 mark). Might be worth getting your hands on the budget DLSRs because they are surprisingly small.

[timtim86]

That's not far off a LX3 - you might be able to haggle a discount or look for an offer/cashback to bring it within budget - or go second hand.

If you have to go under that, then yes the TZ7 is worth a look, as is the Canon SX200 IS. Thing is they're not really such the step up from regular compact cameras that I'd feel they're worth spending budget-DSLR kind of money on (Nikon D40, Sony A200 etc. all around the £200 mark). Might be worth getting your hands on the budget DLSRs because they are surprisingly small.

Thanks man.

By the way, I know it's a bit more expensive, but have you heard anything good about the Nikon P6000?

[TheAnimus]

Might want to look at the pentax W60:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digita...x-Optio-W60/p1

Can be had for £150 from Argos, waterproof to 4 meters. But it is only just a point and click, nothing more.

[kalniel]

By the way, I know it's a bit more expensive, but have you heard anything good about the Nikon P6000?

No. Seems to be inferior to the LX3 in just about every way, and often more expensive to boot.

[Roger55]

I would suggest u to have a look on Canon G9, They are reasonable in price with better image quality It is more of practical photographic tool. , for more reviews visit this
checkcost.co.uk/digital-cameras/c/4368/
This may help u to narrow down your search and find the best deal.
G9 is an excellent camera for shooting outdoor shots, its picture quality in good and light is outstanding. Then you have the new G10, it looks similar to G9 but a bit larger n a bit expensive.

[brammers]

300 quid and no previous in photography for travel? LX3 for 350 quid from One-stop digital sounds great, it's a bit more I know and you then need spare batteries/SDs etc which take it to 400quid, but it sounds perfect as an all-in-one.

If that's no good then take a look at the various DPreview compact group tests - they've got all sorts from specially tough cameras to superzooms. A friend took a waterproof camera to Mongolia and it was cool taking snaps while swimming with kids in the rivers, but maybe something a bit better photographically would be more useful...

Personally I'd take a DSLR with a standard zoom (24-70/100 35mm equivalent) and some sort of tele - either something like a 135 2.8 or a 55-200. You'll struggle to get that + batteries + CF for 300 quid though.

One thing - try and take some sort of tripod along. If you're happy carrying a full tripod then great, but even if you only stick in a bean-bag or one of those table tripods you'll be the only one getting sharp shots of landscapes when the light goes down.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I would look at either the Panasonic TZ6 or TZ7 as they have a 25mm to 300mm zoom!

They have got a good review:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209grouplongzoom/

Here are some TZ7 reviews:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pa...mc_zs3-review/

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digita...mix-DMC-TZ7/p1

I like the LX3 too but it does not have much telephoto range which is useful to have on a trip if you do not have another camera to hand.

The cheapest dSLR combo I can think off is a Sony A200 with the standard lens and a Tamron 70-300mm which will set you back nearly £400 once a case and a memory card is also included.

The advantage of the TZ7 is the useful zoom range and the fact it is small and as a result you will be able to carry it with you at all times! The fact that the range is so wide means you do not need to fumble around with changing lenses and hence you have a lower likelihood of missing a shot.

The 25mm end is much more wider than the 28mm that most dSLR superzooms have apart from the Tokina 24-200mm which has less reach at the telephoto end and is for full frame and 35mm film cameras. I could imagine loads of nice landscapes in the countries you are going to so the 25mm end is definitely useful.
The 300mm end is useful if you want to go to a national park or wildlife sanctuary and take pictures of any animals for example.

A digital SLR will have better image quality but the size means that you can end up leaving it in your hotel room and as a result it means that you can end missing shots and also this increases the chance it would be stolen too.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have also read that if you have a 200mm+ dSLR lens at Machu Picchu they charge $300:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=31343004

There are also tripod restrictions:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ead.php?t=8089

Somewhere else I read that if a camera looks "professional" it can also attract surcharges. There were also restrictions on the amount of camera equipment you could bring into Peru. I do not how valid these claims are but I would seriously look at the restrictions countries have on photographic equipment to save on any hidden costs.

With the built in stabilisation with the Pansonic TZ6,TZ7 and LX3 you maybe able to get away without carrying a tripod or monopod.

There are combined walking sticks and monopods though:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Camlink-CMP1.../dp/B001GCVF78

http://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/pro...productid=6968

I would see the monpods as being useful in lower light conditions.

[brammers]

Just to clarify the difference between an LX3 and one of those superzooms. An LX3 is a more professional model - it's tougher and faster in operation - especially autofocus. Its sensor is much more advanced - it'll cope a LOT better in the dark than the other stuff. Its lens is also adapted to shoot in the dark - it's faster. Downside is that the zoom range is somewhat limited and that to pack all of that quality into such a small package the cost goes up. An LX3 isn't a nightime shooter in the way that even a basic DSLR can be, but it's a big step forwards in flexibility.

The 2 that Cat-the-fifth pointed out are daytime cameras imo - should the light drop then either the IQ goes to hell or you get the flash out. They have no way of freezing motion in low light. How useful the long zoom is is debatable - they will have pretty poor autofocus which will make locking onto anything that's moving at the long, dark end of the zoom a nightmare - forget about that Peruvian Eagle in flight, slow moving stuff only. On the plus side they've got huge zooms, you can zoom right in on stuff, and they're much cheaper. Great for snapshots.

Basic DSLR packages are also 400quid, say an a200 + 18-70 kit lens, a cheap tele-zoom:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MINOLTA-AF-SON...3%3A4|294%3A50

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/original-MINOL...3%3A4|294%3A50

and a bit of memory + battery... It's a lot more powerful and flexible than either an LX3 or a superzoom compact, but big & expensive.

Tbh, I think it's really down to how fussed you are about shooting Vs travelling. If you want to go for some photography then even that basic a200 package will allow you to come home with some really great stuff if you put the hours in before you go. If you just want some snaps to record the memories, with maybe the odd printable shot then a super-zoom or waterproof compact is the way forwards.

One more thing - as someone who's done a fair bit of travelling cameras don't tend to die except for by accident in my experience... I killed my compact's screen in Moscow for example - falling off a chair while utterly hammered on vodka. I wouldn't personally bother with a 'tough' camera unless you want it for the waterproofing, which is very desireable!