Marci_77

In my effort to pack light I'm considering taking only a compact digital camera instead of my big camera bag with attachments.

If you've done this, did you regret it?

Nutella

Marci, I just posted a few minutes earlier about my carry on being really heavy... it's filled with all my camera equipment! But leaving any single piece of it home is not an option!!!

Nutella

Oh, by the way, I'm also bringing my "compact" camera, as a backup

rfb

We took both last year and the photo quality is virtually indistinguishable in enlargements up to 11x14 and minimal after that.

The digital fits in my pocket and xrays wont hurt it. I'll never take the 35mm again; it's too much of a hassle.

flycatcher06

Hi, i would bring them. I just brought my digital and when i return i am going to bring my SLR but hopefully by then my SLR will be my digital!!!

ira

Hi m,

>Do you regret not lugging your SLR and lenses?<

Not since I bought a compact digital.

I suggest one with 4x or greater **optical** zoom.

makemyday

No regrets.
Especially since I started taking my Leica Minilux Zoom Compact film camera (creates better photos than most SLRs or digitals), in addition to my trusty Canon compact digital.

Everything fits in my pockets.

mhdavidson

Most of my vacation photos are at the 24mm wide angle setting which is not available on most compacts (usually around 38 mm). So yes, I did regret the one trip I took without my SLR. I leave the 80-200 at home and go with a 24-80 which suits my needs. I do pack both for backup purposes.

moldyhotelsaregross

Have you considered buying a 28-300 mm lens and not worry about switching back and forth? It has met all my needs.

Tamrac makes a nice bag system called the Modular Accessory System (MAS in many listings) that allows you to carry very little in the way of excess baggage. I have the holster styled bag and one small extra lens case mounted to the side for incidentals like metro tickets, sunglasses and tissues.

Michael

From what I have been reading, you can switch to digital unless, like me, you still want slides.

starrsville

Not at all.

My poor mom looked like a pack mule in London carrying my SLR camera case and my video camera case - while I'm zipping about getting arsty-fartsy shots.

Some time later I realized I was seeing my vacation sights from behind a camera lens. Now, I concentrate on taking "mental" images of most of the sights. I'm a much improved traveling companion because of it.

I do have a nice compact camera with zoom that has serviced me well. I have also been very pleased with the quality of disposable camera photos taken in places where I didn't want to worry about my camera being hurt or damaged.

Flyboy

I know it can be tough to take the plunge into new technology, but a compact digital is really the way to go. It provides quality and convenience in spades. The other aspect that some posters are touching on can be equally important, which is that you can either have the experience or you can try to document it in pictures -- but it can be difficult to do both of these things at the same time.

Borealis

Why not take both a digital and a SLR?? That way, if the digital suddenly "dies", as my trusty Canon has at the most inopportune times, you have at least another camera to take its place. I would suggest an SLR with only one lens, perhaps a 28-105, it should be fine for most situations.

ms_go

I took trips to Hawaii and Scotland last year with just a compact digital (Canon A80); the SLR and all its accessories stayed at home. I was pretty happy with the quality of most pictures, but there were some times when I missed having a wide angle lens. Fortunately, they make an adaptor and wide angle lens for the Canon A80 (which also is very small and easy to pack), so I've purchased that and am testing it out. So far, it seems to be working fairly well, so that's what I'm planning to use for my trips this summer.

rkkwan

Sometimes I do wish I had brought a SLR. Besides the wide-angle issue (my widest lens is a 22mm), it's mostly about control. With a compact, even if it's a advance model with <b>some</b> control on exposure, it's still far from a SLR where I can see in the viewfinder exactly what aperture and exposure I'm using, and can <b>easily and rapidly</b> change it, or increase/decrease exposure. Very important if I want certain depth-of-field, or in awkward light situation.

Another issue is flash - the one that's on a compact is most often not powerful enough, and has very limited control when you want to do a fill-flash or flash with a long exposure for the background, etc...

Anyways, if you have no idea what I'm talking about in the above paragraphs, then yes a compact will do for you.

suze

I changed out my SLR Pentax for a point-and-shoot with a decent lense years ago with no regrets. I have even done with using disposable cameras successfully.

As mentioned by one poster above, I am not terribly obsessed with photography when I travel these days. I take a couple rolls and back them up with postcards of major sites.

It's a freeing experience not to be behind the lense of a camera. I'd encourage you to go with just your compact digital camera and see for yourself.

Clifton

I just brought a small compact digital on a business trip to Colorado with me because the digital SLR would have been too much to handle with other concerns on this trip.

Yep, I regretted not taking the Nikon I have. The compact point and shoot one is a very good camera really - decent zoom and 5MP. But I missed having control of my photos. Don't get me wrong, the point and shoots take perfectly nice vacation snapshots, just like the point and shoot film cameras did before them and for most people, that's perfectly adequate. Mega pixels really say very little about the final quality of the photo output. And if adequate is all you want, then why mess with dragging all that stuff around?

On the other hand, if you're used to being able to control your depth of focus, your white balance exposure levels, to be able to meter on the part of the photo you want, then point and shoots are sort of frustrating. I feel I get &quot;ok&quot; photos - not good, not bad. With an SLR, I can either get a really great photo or a really lousy one. It's more to think about, but since I enjoy the photography aspect as a sort of artistic thing (in feel, if not in results) then I miss that when it's not a part of the trip. I spend a lot of time looking at the P&amp;S going &quot;ahh.. ^*&amp;^$@% camera! Don't focus THERE!&quot;

makemyday

&gt;&gt;&gt;...if you're used to being able to control your depth of focus, your white balance exposure levels, to be able to meter on the part of the photo you want, then point and shoots are sort of frustrating.&lt;&lt;&lt;

A Leica MInilux compact point-and-shoot should have enough for you to paly with.

Clifton

I have to admit, I'd probably find less to complain about with my photos if Leica optics were involved, that's for sure - although Ive never tried their P&amp;S.

Of course, if I could swing Leica prices... I'd probably be all over a new wide angle 1.8 lens instead! Pretty much a taste thing, I think.

Steve_P

I couldn't get by without my SLR. I like to have control over aperature (depth of field) and find that, in Europe in particular, a wide angle is indispensable. I carry a 17 - 35 F2.8 and a 24-120 and usually leave my big lenses home. I always carry a good flash unit - the built-ins don't come close to what I can do with a good flash. I just went digital - but with a digital SLR. The only problem is that with the size of the sensor, the magnification reduces the short end of my lenses. My 17 - 35 becomes a 25.5 -52.5 lense. Eventually, I'll pick up a 12 - 24 mm lense to replace the wide end.

Steve