DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

Well I've found myself in a dilemma I never imagined! In June I'm off to Europe/UK for two months, and a five night stop over in Thailand before I return to Sydney town. I've always imagined taking my D700 and 24-70 lens (and MAYBE the 50mm or the 85mm) too. In the last couple of days however, I've been wondering to myself if I *really* want to lug that big camera around with me all the time. Considering the vast improvement in P&S cameras these days I found myself looking in a camera shop today at the Canon G11. Whilst it's not a COMPACT P&S it's sure a LOT smaller and convenient than the huge-ness that is the mighty D700.

I will be staying with friends mostly whilst away, in various countries/cities so security wouldn't be a massive issue. I've already got good travel insurance organised so that's ok. I guess I'm asking what people here think about the notion of NOT taking the D700 and 'compromising' with something decent like the G11? The pro's I see with the G11 are that it's small enough to carry around with ease, it's light, relatively compact and possibly take more of a battering than the D700 would. Obviously I will get far superior image results from the D700 but I'm not sure if that's enough of a reason to lug it around for eight weeks!

I'd be keen to hear peoples thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.

Interesting thought Geoff - I've been having the same idea lately too.

I was looking at the G11 as well before a friend suggested the Canon S90.

Same Sensor, Same zoom, but wider max aperture (2.0 vs 2.
Slightly further close focus (0.4in v 2in).
G11 has slightly better autofocus
G11 has flash hot shoe (if you care)

I'm looking for something to go in an underwater case for snorkelling and a lot of dive forums recommend the S90 for that as well as general use.

It's cheaper too!

not taking the d700 to europe is imo a monumental mistake unless you;re backpacking it the whole time. if you can leave the camera somewhere during the days you dont want to take a big pack then take it with you and leave it it the place you're staying.

as for the options, i;d be more inclined to look at a GH1 with pancake over a g11 personally.

Geoff... I did just that a few years ago more or less... took most of my kit including tripod and all... whilst I certainly managed a few good shots, most were of the 'happy snap' variety that are good for the memory but not for hanging. I would suggest as well as looking at the G11, have a serious look at the S90 which is compact and has an f2 lens with the same sensor as the G11. There are plenty of places that would have issue with any attempt at shooting with a D700 but wouldn't notice an S90. The question really is what you think your going to take photos of, is the slr going to be needed and are you going o/s to take pictures or other primary reasons... sometimes its good to just take it all in with your eyes rather than hide behind a lens.

I would take the big camera and then also have a good little camera in case you want a light day....otherwise bring something smaller (D60/D3000 - I did this when I went to Tassie of last year, but bringing AF-S lenses killed me as I only have AF-S 2.8 lenses).

I do like the S90 (and would pick this over a G11 based on size and f/2 lens) but at the same time they are known to have a bit of problem with that ring on the front being faulty. But at the same time the LX3 still has huge appeal to me.

A trip to Europe and not take your main camera? Ok if you dont want to lug a big lens around consider the 24-85 and the 50. Also maybe get one of those tough little P&S like the Lumix FT1 for when the wether is not too good or when you want to go skin diving. or you are hiking.

I certainly see the attraction of not taking a big camera, and everything that it entails, on just about any sort of a trip, and many of the PHDs available today offer some very compelling features that makes this a very worthwhile option to consider.

Or look at one of the micro four thirds systems as an option.

But it always comes back to the question of opportunities lost. Why are you going, what are you intending to do on the trip (and with those images) and how will you feel if you see a great shot, but are not in a position to capture it?

Rather than taking the big glass - and the f/2.8 zooms are big and heavy- why not consider a smaller kit with a couple of well chosen primes? On FF, the 24mm f/2.8 works very well, and is small and compact, add either of the 50mm lenses, an 85 or 105, and/or then maybe the 70-300 paperweight for length.

And don't take the grip with the D700. There's a bunch of weight (and batteries) removed off the top! Or bottom.

I agree with Rooz, after traveling half way around the world and not taking your DSLR would be a mistake....

Goeff - I think you're right to conisder this as an option, but unless your sole idea is to take happy snaps where image quality is irrelevant I say take the D700. The point and shoot has more limited capabailities in terms of zoom range, image sharpness and low light handling than the D700 and a kit of lenses offer. No matter how you slice and dice it the image quality from a point and shoot can't match your D700 (after all why else would you have the D700 ) With the places your going there will be fantastic opportunities to take images of amazing places where quality of the finished product WILL be important. Sure there will be times you only want ahppy snaps so, like Cameron suggests, take a point and shoot as well for use on those occasions. This is a big chance for you to refine your skills in a new environment - do more landscape and architectural work. Using the D700 means when you come back with that cracker shot you have the ability to print it nice and large that just won't be there with a point and shoot.

The answer is simple.

1 - If this is primarily a two month photo shoot then take the D700 and be damned

2 - If this is a holiday then take the best P&S available.

Gary has made a good suggestion with the 4/3rds system.

Forget the 4/3rds....take a 1/3rd.
Seriously...take the d700 and a couple of primes as Gary pointed out. A 50mm, 20 or 24mm and that should do it. Leave the long stuff at home.

Hi Geoff,

I went to Europe UK last year and had similar thoughts. I ended up getting a LX3 and probably took half my photos with it when OS. Though it does not have the reach of the G11 it has superb pic quality, smaller and f2. A marvelous camera. I still use it as a travel camera.

Having said that I also brought my D200 and purchased a 16-85 which was just brilliant for this trip. I have the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and that trinity can stay at home.

You know when I think about it, sticking with Nikon and getting a D5000 and maybe a 16-85 or an older 18-70 is a thought as it is a small camera and you can use some of your other lenses with it. I don't think it has a autofocus screwdriver so it probably is no good for an 85 or older 50. Or maybe a d5000 and just that new 35 dx lens would be really nice. Just some thoughts to scramble you ever more.

All the best.

Peter Mc

petermmc wrote: Or maybe a d5000 and just that new 35 dx lens would be really nice. Just some thoughts to scramble you ever more.

Or the 18-200 makes a light, one lens 11x zoom combo with a D5000 or a 2nd hand d40x or something simlar.

Alpha_7 wrote:

petermmc wrote: Or maybe a d5000 and just that new 35 dx lens would be really nice. Just some thoughts to scramble you ever more.

Or the 18-200 makes a light, one lens 11x zoom combo with a D5000 or a 2nd hand d40x or something simlar.

Sorry I would back the 16-85VR over the 18-200VR any day of the week....but the concept is a sound one still. The 35mm makes the perfect DX companion lens as well

aim54x wrote:Sorry I would back the 16-85VR over the 18-200VR any day of the week....but the concept is a sound one still. The 35mm makes the perfect DX companion lens as well

I was only suggesting that, as I've already offered him a loan of mine, so a free 18-200 vs a 16-85 you might have to buy.. it certainly isn't the best lens, but I've taken plenty of saleable travel shots with it... mind you.. it sucks on the d700 being dx.

Alpha_7 wrote:

aim54x wrote:Sorry I would back the 16-85VR over the 18-200VR any day of the week....but the concept is a sound one still. The 35mm makes the perfect DX companion lens as well

I was only suggesting that, as I've already offered him a loan of mine, so a free 18-200 vs a 16-85 you might have to buy.. it certainly isn't the best lens, but I've taken plenty of saleable travel shots with it... mind you.. it sucks on the d700 being dx.

Craig I meant no offence, I was merely stating that i would take a 16-85 over an 18-200 if I were to choose between them (esp if I had to buy either of them)

aim54x wrote:Craig I meant no offence, I was merely stating that i would take a 16-85 over an 18-200 if I were to choose between them (esp if I had to buy either of them)

None taken Hope I didn't sound offended, and I haven't used to 16-85 but sounds like a good walkaround lens.

I just went overseas and took my D2X with 17-35, 28-70 and 10-5, I could have taken the D70 and 24-120, but looking at my pictures have no regret to have carried the extra weight. The D700 without grip sure is no monster... Coupled with the 24-70 this sure is ideal for a trip.

Hmmm, some great responses in there and now I'm even more confused! Well, not really.
I am thinking I might just take the D700 and the 24-70 and something a bit wider (i.e the 14-24, but I'd have to buy that first haha!). Great suggestion of taking the battery pack off the D700, that certainly will reduce the weight and I'd probably not bother with the SB800 either. Thanks all. I have some time to consider my options.

Geoff, I would take both, a reduced setup for the D700 and a smaller unit.

Congratulations on the trip, sounds fantastic.

I would probably still take the flash, it can go in your normal luggage without too much hassle - and if you try photographing inside anything large it comes in very handy!

tommyg wrote:I would probably still take the flash,

I wouldn't.

it can go in your normal luggage without too much hassle - and if you try photographing inside anything large it comes in very handy!

I've rarely felt a need for a powerful flash when traveling, and the SB800/SB900 is not all that powerful a unit. Plus it needs more batteries. Photographing inside something large really requires either no flash, or multiple flashes.

And with a D700's high ISO performance, who cares? For close-in fill situations, the built-in flash will work fine.

you can borrow my sb400 if you like. it's miles better than the PUF and is so tiny you wont even notice its there. for indoors or fill its gold. the only time it will struggle is with large areas.

Rooz wrote:you can borrow my sb400 if you like. it's miles better than the PUF and is so tiny you wont even notice its there. for indoors or fill its gold. the only time it will struggle is with large areas.

+1 on the SB-400!

When we were in NZ (granted, only for 2 weeks with the use of a car), we took our full kit and bought more over there (80-200; battery grip; monopod). We took the tripod with us. A stripped down kit of, say, 24-70 plus something wider (you can borrow my 20mm 2.8 if you wish) would be very managable. The extent to which you need something longer like your 70-200 will depend on how many shots you think you will take at that length (and really, this relates more to longer than, say, about 120 or so as you can always crop shots taken at 70 for those shots requiring slightly longer than 70).

You can borrow my strobes plus softboxes plus backdrops if you want?

I wouldn't dare go on holiday to such amazing places and not take a camera! I agree with those saying leave the big stuff though and go for some primes or a small wide zoom, compromise for your portability. You'd be kicking yourself if you came across something you'd really want to shoot and you didn't have your D700! I much prefer over- to under-prepared.

Have fun!

You're staying with friends in a secure place...
Take the camera.