for photo bugs
 

I am debating which photo equipment to take with me on my upcoming trip to Paris and London. I have an SLR and a small automatic. I took both to Italy last year, and they each came in handy at various times. Do I take the tripod? Do I buy the macro lens I have been coveting? I don't want to be burdened with unnecessary equipment. What do you do?

Did you regret not having high quality pictures (via the SLR) after you returned home from your last trip?<BR><BR>If not, take the point and shoot, and spend your time looking at stuff, and making some snapshots, instead of working at serious photography.<BR><BR>But if you keep thinking about those shots you missed, take the good camera, and buy the extra lens before you go.<BR><BR>Plus ....<BR><BR>IF you stop to take serious pictures, are you going to seriously annoy a travelling companion who wants to keep going on to the next place? If so, decide if the pictures are worth the annoying of a friend.<BR><BR>BAK

I guess the first decision is digital or not. I have not as yet converted. I just like the better quality photos at this point in time.<BR><BR>The point about annoying a travel companion should be well taken. I have a pretty good amateur camera (Canon Elan 7e). <BR><BR>I made a decision that I would not carry an extra lens (I have a moderate wide/zoom 28-105). Changing lenses takes too long and would not be fair to my wife. The most important part of a vacation is enjoying yourself.<BR><BR>For the same reason I would not carry a tripod.<BR><BR>I take some evening photos (I've started using Fuji 400 film), etc and they came out fine.<BR><BR>

Unless you are really into night photography, don't take the tripod. I always carry one, but I almost never use it unless I am traveling alone. Then I tend to use it a lot because more time gets devoted to photography, and I get up earlier when there is less light. You are not going to want to lug it around just to increase sharpness during the day. However, if you want to go out for a night or two of serious photography, it is worth taking. Still, there are other options. You can get a mini-tripod and find something to set it on or look for walls and other places to sit your camera for longer exposures.<BR><BR>A macro capable lens will be of little use for most travel photography, unless you are into flowers or closeups of other objects. It just takes so much time to compose macro shots too that it may eat up a lot of sightseeing time. For travel, I rely almost completely on two zooms - 20-35 and 28-105. I also carry a 70-210, which I use for about 2% of my photos, mostly candids. If you don't already have a lens that goes below 28mm, it would be a much better buy for travel than a macro lens.<BR><BR>If you are serious about photography, and you likely are if you are considering whether to take a tripod, I would certainly take both cameras. I use the SLR always unless going out for dinner when I don't want to lug one around.

Oh, by the way, always glad to help someone with "nctarheel" in the address.

As a professional Commercial photographer for 28 years, I carry a beat-up old Nikon (if it gets stolen, big whoop), a 35mm lens (for shots of big buildings, castles, etc.) + a cheap, 3X converter (turns the 35mm into a 105mm). A small Vivitar “bendy” pod, available at any camera store for well under #20 and it’s only about 6 inches high, easily carried in a pocket. Take plenty of film because, in countries like England, film is EXPENSIVE. If you want to invest in it, buy a lead film bag for your carryon.