We were in England for two weeks in May, and I had our Canon Rebel with the mid size zoom lens (and regular lens), while my husband just wanted to carry our little Canon Sure Shot camera. I carried the camera in a regular backpack and that worked great as I also had room for a light jacket and other little items (water bottle, etc.). I am glad I decided to take the camera with the zoom lens or else we would not have had some of the awesome pictures we came home with after our trip.

I got tired of carrying my slr camera on trips to Europe and started carrying a digital point and shoot instead. Then we did a heritage trip to Romania and I brought the slr (film) and my brother and I each brought a point and shoot. We took turns with the slr. Many, many times we had side by side pictures of the same shot - the slr and either my Canon p&s or his Sony p&s. No comparison - the slr had superior pictures every time.

So, I asked for a digital slr for Christmas 2006, and have gone back to the "big" camera on my travels. I use the smallest camera bag I can fit the equipment into. On travel days, I tuck the camera bag into a day backpack. For sightseeing in the city, I use a tote bag/messenger bag with the camera (and often the camera bag) inside.

For a quarter century, we traveled with about 25 pounds of equipment -- two bodies, four lenses, flash, mini tripod, cables, lead-lined bags filled with film. I frequently wrote about travel, his pictures illustrated the published articles.
In retirement, we switched to a Nikon point & shoot and a digital camcorder. We edit the results into travel films -- I write and do the narrations, he edits the visuals and adds the captions and background music. We show the films at service clubs and libraries. The whole package including charger fits in the corner of a carryon and weighs less than 10 pounds.
We've never felt our camera equipment was in danger. But once, while shooting stills in Rome with the SLR, he had his wallet stolen from his pocket.

Not going to comment on the camera.

One thing you should be aware of is that we in the UK are obsessed with Paedophiles. If you take a picture of children (perfectly legal) you may be challenged.

If you take a picture of a bus and a child happens to be on the bus you may be challenged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...blic-park.html

...funny though but the UK government takes pictures of children (and adults too) almost every move they make all in the name (not that I am necessarily indicating it is wrong) of the fight against terrorism (born of course long before Islamic fascism but against the IRA)....

Can't answer your question. Just want to remind you to check your insurance coverage.

I travel with my dSLR, multiple lenses, etc. I would never not take it all because I LOVE using my camera gear.

A couple things I've discovered for me:

If the gear will fit in a beltpack, they are a great choice for travel. They open at the top so you can switch lenses while you walk. The bag is always attached to you (carry it with the gear at your front), so it won't get left behind or grabbed when you're not looking. If you wear it while boarding the plane, it is not always counted towards your carryon limit.

If you'll be in urban areas, don't do a camera backpack. It's too easy for someone to come up behind you in a crowd and cut the bag. If you're not going to carry it on your back, then a sling bag is a more comfortable fit.

I do take my tripod. It is an inexpensive collapsible one (about $80), so I simply put it in my checked bag. It will easily fit in a 22" in roller. While it's not a big heavy duty tripod, it is enough to get those sunset shots, etc. If something happens, it's not a major loss.

I don't worry that my bag looks like a camera bag. As soon as I take my camera out of the bag, and I'm going to have the camera out often (that's why I brought it), everyone will know what I'm carrying. To me, it's more important that I have a good quality bag to protect my gear from damage than to hide the fact I have a camera.

A photog vest is a great thing to take along. Not only can you use it when you're out to help carry gear, but on your return home, you can pack the pockets full of souvenirs and wear it onto the plane. Because you're wearing it, it doesn't count as a carry on. Just take it off at security and run it through the xray, then put it back on until you're on the plane.

If you're interested in vintage toys, check out Pollock's. Great shop & they can probably steer you to where to get vintage toys if they don't have what you want. It's been a few years since I was there but they have a website:

http://www.pollocks-coventgarden.co.uk/

sshepherd, your site really doesn't work in Firefox - the front page does but none of the albums load. What a shame

I am not a professional photographer, just do it for a hobby but I wouldn't dream of going on holiday without my Dslr and at least a couple of lenses. I usually also take my tripod just in case (though I'm not sure I'd bother in London). I carry it all myself, in a Tamrac rucksack or in a messenger type photo bag. Oh offers to carry it but hey I choose to take it so I'll do the donkey work too. I leave it all in the hotel room when we go out to eat or whatever - never had a problem with that and can't see why you would.
I want the best possible photos I can take as memories, and that to me means my Dslr. I have a couple of my photos framed at A3 size, which you cannot be confident of doing with a P&S. Besides why fork out more money on a P&S when you've spent so much on gear already - put it towards another piece of glass I say

I do have it all well insured, including for if I have to check the gear - just in case we're flying when there is another no hand baggage allowed scare.

Taking photos is one of the chief joys of travel for me. I put off buying any kind of digital camera for years, because all the ones I tried were frustrating, they didn't feel like real cameras, they didn't take the picture exactly when I pushed the button, I couldn't even really tell when the picture was being taken. So for me, taking a digital point and shoot would be very unsatisfying.

I finally bought a digital SLR a year ago, the Canon Rebel XTi, and it has greatly enhanced my enjoyment of picture-taking on my travels. If I don't want to bring a camera bag, I just put the camera with one lens attached into my purse for the day.

"willit - you are the first one to tell me it doesn't work on Firefox. In fact, I use Firefox on both my Mac and my PC and it works."

I use firefox 3 - but later I will use an older PC that still has firefox version 2. FF3 does work if you use the "emulate IE" plugin.

By the way, I didn't mean it to be a negative comment, I really enjoyed your pictures.

Just to confirm that the site looks fine on Firefox 2 running on Ubuntu.

To the original question - I have a Canon S5 point and shoot, which I love, but even this is sometimes too large as a "holiday camera".

If I take it with me, I feel obliged to lug it around and take photographs - to the extent that the photography starts to take precedence over the vacation. I am sure that if I finally went for the DSLR, Iwould be even worse.

I now carry around a Canon S720 which seems almost the ideal compromise for me - it is small enough to fit into a pocket, but has 8MP and a 6 times zoom which works fine for me in 90% of the time. If I see something that cries out for a photo, then the camera is with me, but I don't feel guilty if I fail to return with 1000s of shots.

although if anyone knows where to buy vintage toys please feel free to share your hot spots. >>>>>

Camden Passage Antiques Market, which confusingly is not in Camden. It is in Islington. You need to go to Angel tube (which has the longest escalator in Britain - it's huge. Possible photo op?)

Turn right out of the tube and its a few hundred yards on the right.

As for the camera stuff? Buggered if i know.

An alternative

http://gallery.me.com/sshephard1#100168

So what is the best non-dslr camera that allows a person to shoot in raw and that has relatively low noise at 800 iso? Image stabilization would be good, too.

Some of you have me convinced that I should travel lighter.

I started using a Panasonic DMC FZ 18 and do not go over 400 iso. Yet the pictures taken without flash in badly lit underground chapels in Cappadocia came out fine.

http://tinyurl.com/64bpoc

The problem with the bridge cameras is that few have RAW. There is a non permanent hack for Canon cameras using CHDK.

See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

I like a nice camera but try to keep it simple. Otherwise, the search for perfect pictures can totally dominate a trip. Can get so busy with the dang camera that you don't see what is right ahead of you.
However, I am quite intrigued that a number of Fodorites are so very proud of their equipment.

Proud of our equipment? Yes we are!

A few years ago, I was visiting the Leaning Tower of Pisa. I had my DSLR with a telephoto lens attached.

I walked in front of a young couple, and noticed that the man was holding a small point and shoot camera. I thought nothing of it until the woman saw my camera and lens and exclaimed, "Look how big HIS lens is honey!"

I looked a the man and he had an odd expression of anger and chagrin on his face. I was both embarrassed and amused.

Perhaps this experience is why I not longer travel with a long lens - I don't want to stand out.

Boy was I surprised by the answers here..no offense meant to anybody..maybe it's my eyes...I get absolutely stunning pictures with my basically point & shoot digital but it has many different settings that even allow me to either choose the shutter & have the camera select the f stop or vice versa..I would consider it a medium level camera..certainly no contest for an slr but then again it's 1/3 of the price and 1/10 of the weight.

I've compared my pictures with those of a good friend with slr equipment and it must be my eyes but I can't tell much of a difference frankly.

But I'm not a photographer...the pictures just represent memories.

And I can't believe it was just 15 years ago that I used ot lug around a film using slr.....

It's not camera that takes great pictures, it's the photographer.

A great photographer will get more great shots from a P&S than a lousy photographer will get from a top of the line SLR.

But, that doesn't mean a great photographer should simply use a P&S all the time. With better equipment, a great photographer will get that many more great shots because (s)he doesn't hit the limitations of the P&S.

While I'm not a great photographer, I found that my Canon G6 was giving me great results, but I was hitting the limit of the lowlight and telephoto capabilities. In addition, I found that I was missing shots because I couldn't change the manual settings easily. My dSLR resolved those issues and I'm having a blast trying to hit its limitations.

The other difference between the two is that with a dSLR, you can choose all the settings rather than the camera doing it automatically. For me, that's why I don't use a P&S - when I get that great shot, I want it to be because I KNEW what I was doing, not because the camera knew what to do.