Good evening, hope everyone is doing fine today. I am having a hard time deciding on whether to bring my SLR Camera, or my Video Camera with me to Europe. I don't believe I will be able to carry both, and thought that you all would have tons of opinions on this subject. Thanks for the help, take care. <BR> <BR>George

Wow tough chioce. If I could only take one, I guess it would be my camera. I love my camcorder, But I did use my camera much more as it rained a lot and the camcorders pick up dew and moisture very fast. But at least mine warns me. So I wrap it in a towel or something heavy and put in a warm place to get the moisture out of it fast so it does not get damaged. It Works for me everytime. But what ever you choice, make sure to get plenty of use out of it. Alice

If you can deal with the weight, the battery issue, can control yourself not to observe everything through the viewfinder, and are going to see 'moving things, then take the video camera. <BR> <BR>I once watched a tourist in Paris videotaping the UNDERNEATH of the Eiffel Tower, while children played, boats sailed the Seine, and people walked by. <BR> <BR>Your tape or photographs should bring back memories of what you saw, not BE the only thing you saw....

Personally I would take the SLR. There's nothing like a print in the hand. You can show pictures to people, look at them in an album, mail out copies, scan and email them and frame them.

If you can only take one then IMO the SLR. I carry both. I have a fanney pack that I picked up ar REI that hase compartments for my SLR lenses and extra film, batteries and sling the cameras across my chest. Yes it is a little heavier but, IMO its worth it. If you have a wide screen TV the videos aare marvoulous. By the way I had a grand dauaghter on Friday and she is beautiful. My vidio camera is a digital with a memory stick so was able to get s couple of stills and then view them on my 60" screen. Fantistic.

Camera only. I quit taking my video when I discovered that the people on the trip expected me to be taking movies all the time. I saw a girl this summer walk entirely through Versailles with her face in the video viewfinder. I don't think she ever came up to look at and enjoy the real thing. I am also noticing fewer and fewer video cameras each year. Seems like people have figured out that they never watch the movies when they get home because they are jerky and filled with noises and wind noises. Just do a camera and enjoy the trip while you are actually in Europe.

I agree with Bob that if you always are having to look through the viewfinder you will miss a lot with a camcorder. Mine has a LCD screen so I can tape without having to look through the viewfinder. I still enjoy both. <BR>Art <BR>ps parden my spelling in my previous reply. <BR>

SLR Camera only. The video camera is great. BUT, it requires extra batteries, a battery charger (of the correct voltage), and tapes. There is nothing worse than a low voltage warning message. I carry several extra charged batteries for that event. Even though my camera is small, an 8 MM, and the batteries are very compact, I found that the extra weight and bulk were not worth the effort. The battery issue alone can be exasperating when out and about for a long day of sightseeing. I leave the video at home for local stuff. For my travelling I take my trusty SLR, zoom wide angle lens, and 800 speed film. I bring home lots of memories that can easily be shared with others.

Have tried both, and it is SLR only for me. The video camera is just too much work, too much filming and not enough enjoying. I can easily take a photo and then put the camera down and keep on walking. Less to carry around too. Personally, I look at the photos a lot more than I ever pull out the videos.

Like many of the others in this thread, I suggest your camera. You can hang your pictures around your house or your office. Hanging video tapes labeled "Europe 2000" just isn't the same thing.

Another vote for the SLR. Videos grow old too quickly. <BR> <BR>One thing I wish I had during my time in Europe was a sound recorder (walkman with a mike, or those note-taker thingies) to capture the sounds of Europe...a clarinet playing jazz in a Parisian bar, the orchestra outside the cathedral in Cologne, cow bells on the way up to Mt Titlis, a Londoner's cool accent. Tapes are cheap and light, as are AA batteries. I haven't ever tried this idea, but if you do, please report back <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

This is a really good question. The point about seeing everything through your viewfinder is a good one, but you can do likewise with a camera. You just have to remind yourself to look around without either, and not capture everything along the way on film. With either, one always has the frustration of things (vehicles, construction equipment, people) in the way. If you don't want to carry both, you just need to decide which media you prefer. If you enjoy your travel videos, and don't care whether or not you have photos of Europe with yourself in them, bring the video camera. You can pick up fabulous postcards (all taken under optimal conditions from fabulous angles) everywhere for "still" shots. And, there are wonderful inexpensive books full of photographs (again, taken with optimal conditions) at every destination, which include all the sights, buildings, monuments, churches, etc. It's a personal decision. Only you can decide whether having videos of your trip will be worth lugging the camera around. On our first trip to Europe, we took my husband's fancy Minolta with all the accessories. Too much to bother with. Now, we take a pocket-size auto everything camera.